In court Friday morning, Flynn's only comments were to answer yes and no to questions from the judge. He told the judge he has not been coerced to plead guilty or been promised a specific sentence. Flynn faces a maximum sentence of five years in prison, according to federal sentencing guidelines, though the judge Friday morning stressed he could impose a harsher or lighter sentence.

In a statement, Flynn said he acknowledged that his actions "were wrong, and, through my faith in God, I am working to set things right.

"My guilty plea and agreement to cooperate with the Special Counsel's Office reflect a decision I made in the best interests of my family and of our country. I accept full responsibility for my actions," he said.

Just watching CNN. I have to say this. The difference between the analysis by Carl Bernstein and that of David Gregory is PAINFUL. FUCKING painful. And Gregory was chirping to interrupt Carl Bernstein to say the nothingburger SHIT he said? I'm tempted to transcribe the entire thing.

There's no hope. When the the almost extinct now generations of great reporters are gone, we're fucking finished here, folks. Game over.

Just watching CNN. I have to say this. The difference between the analysis by Carl Bernstein and that of David Gregory is PAINFUL. FUCKING painful. And Gregory was chirping to interrupt Carl Bernstein to say the nothingburger SHIT he said? I'm tempted to transcribe the entire thing.

There's no hope. When the the almost extinct now generations of great reporters are gone, we're fucking finished here, folks. Game over.

i would trade in a whole bunch of 'em to have tim russert back. i've endured too many white house briefings to see they can't get real answers because they don't know how to ask the questions. russert was genius at nailing folks to the wall without burning bridges.

Just watching CNN. I have to say this. The difference between the analysis by Carl Bernstein and that of David Gregory is PAINFUL. FUCKING painful. And Gregory was chirping to interrupt Carl Bernstein to say the nothingburger SHIT he said? I'm tempted to transcribe the entire thing.

There's no hope. When the the almost extinct now generations of great reporters are gone, we're fucking finished here, folks. Game over.

i would trade in a whole bunch of 'em to have tim russert back. i've endured too many white house briefings to see they can't get real answers because they don't know how to ask the questions. russert was genius at nailing folks to the wall without burning bridges.

Russert was an asshole, imo.

One of his great "gotcha" nothing burgers was "nailing" Dennis Kucinich re "UFOs".

On the First day of Christmas Bob Mueller gave to me
an impeachment of the Trump Team.

On the Second day of Christmas Bob Mueller gave to me
Two indictments done
And an impeachment of the Trump Team

On the Third day of Christmas Bob Mueller gave to me
Three turned friends
Two indictments done
And an impeachment of the Trump Team

On the Fourth day of Christmas Bob Mueller gave to me
Four perjured words
Three turned friends
Two indictments done
And an impeachment of the Trump Team

On the Fifth day of Christmas Bob Mueller gave to me
Five Houses flipped
Four perjured words
Three turned friends
Two indictments done
And an impeachment of the Trump Team

On the Sixth day of Christmas Bob Mueller gave to me
Six Flynns a-flipping
Five Houses flipped
Four perjured words
Three turned friends
Two indictments done
And an impeachment of the Trump Team

On the Seventh day of Christmas Bob Mueller gave to me
Seven pawns a-singing
Six Flynns a-flipping
Five Houses flipped
Four perjured words
Three turned friends
Two indictments done
And an impeachment of the Trump Team

On the Eighth day of Christmas Bob Mueller gave to me
Eight aides a-running
Seven pawns a-singing
Six Flynns a-flipping
Five Houses flipped
Four perjured words
Three turned friends
Two indictments done
And an impeachment of the Trump Team

On the Ninth day of Christmas Bob Mueller gave to me
Nine Russians calling
Eight aides a-running
Seven pawns a-singing
Six Flynns a-flipping
Five Houses flipped
Four perjured words
Three turned friends
Two indictments done
And an impeachment of the Trump Team

On the Tenth day of Christmas Bob Mueller gave to me
Ten hordes a-swarming
Nine Russians calling
Eight aides a-running
Seven pawns a-singing
Six Flynns a-flipping
Five Houses flipped
Four perjured words
Three turned friends
Two indictments done
And an impeachment of the Trump Team

On the Eleventh day of Christmas Bob Mueller gave to me
Eleven Kushners cringing
Ten hordes a-swarming
Nine Russians calling
Eight aides a-running
Seven pawns a-singing
Six Flynns a-flipping
Five Houses flipped
Four perjured words
Three turned friends
Two indictments done
And an impeachment of the Trump Team

On the Twelfth day of Christmas Bob Mueller gave to me
Twelve colluders colluding
Eleven Kushners cringing
Ten hordes a-swarming
Nine Russians calling
Eight aides a-running
Seven pawns a-singing
Six Flynns a-flipping
Five Houses flipped
Four perjured words
Three turned friends
Two indictments done
And an impeachment of the Trump Team

It's pretty easy to read. But since almost no one will, my reading of this is that it's legally rather trivial.

Flynn is charged with one felony count of lying to the FBI. That one count encompasses four lies Flynn told about his conversations with the Russian ambassador. Two lies relate to the content of conversations about sanctions, and two lies relate to the content of conversations about a U.N. Security Council vote concerning Israel.

None of these conversations was in any way illegal. Nor was the conduct that was conversed about. The only illegal thing Flynn did was to materially misstate (lie about) the content of the conversations to the FBI last January.

Flynn was perjury trapped, just like George Papadopolous, who plead guilty to lying about when he talked to an overseas professor and a Russian woman -- he said early March when it was really mid-March or April. Martha Stewart and Scooter Libby were similarly perjury trapped; they did nothing wrong except tell a lie about things that were perfectly legal. This is the evil of special prosecutors. They are incentivized to create crimes that would never have existed if the special counsel process didn't exist. Hence, they are sometimes called "process crimes".

Flynn also stipulated to lying about a bunch of stuff having to do with work he did for Turkey. The DOJ agreed not to prosecute him for any of this in exchange for his guilty plea. The plea agreement states that, although a federal judge has discretion to make the final sentencing decision, the federal sentencing guidelines for Flynn's offense are zero to six months in prison and/or a fine of $500 to $9,500.

The only other nuggets I see in this paperwork are that Flynn stipulates that he discussed his sanctions discussion with a "senior official" of the Presidential Transition Team, and that he was "directed" by a "very senior official" of the PTT to contact various governments, including Russia, about the upcoming U.N. vote. Again, none of these directions, discussions or related conduct is illegal. The only additional possible illegalities discernible from these papers would occur if the "senior official" or the "very senior official" lie to federal investigators about their conversations with Flynn. In other words, more perjury trap gimmickry, more process crimes.

Also keep in mind, after one month on the job, Trump immediately fired Flynn for telling the same lies to Vice President Pence about the Russian sanctions conversations that Flynn now admits he told to the FBI.

It's pretty easy to read. But since almost no one will, my reading of this is that it's legally rather trivial.

Of course it is. This is what they are having him plead to in order to gain his cooperation and potential testimony against their true "big fish" target.

The whole point of this is to get to the top, and Flynn is a step towards it. The fact that what they got him on was lying is unimportant. It is the tool that the FBI an other federal agencies use all the time to get people to flip.

I really don't know what you expected to find in the plea agreement. What he was guilty of is not what is key, nor really that important at all. What is key is what he knows about what happened during the campaign, specifically about how closely Trump and his inner circle was working with Russia to get dirt against Hillary. He was in position to know things, and now that he is cooperating, Mueller will know all this too.

Flynn is charged with one felony count of lying to the FBI. That one count encompasses four lies Flynn told about his conversations with the Russian ambassador. Two lies relate to the content of conversations about sanctions, and two lies relate to the content of conversations about a U.N. Security Council vote concerning Israel.

None of these conversations was in any way illegal. Nor was the conduct that was conversed about. The only illegal thing Flynn did was to materially misstate (lie about) the content of the conversations to the FBI last January.

This also isn't technically true. He would have violated the Logan Act by being a private citizen and engaging in talks on behalf of the US without being authorized to do so by the government at the time.

Of course any conviction would likely be overturned since the act is generally considered unconstitutionally vague even though it has never been offically looked at by SCOTUS.

But as the laws currently stand, he and anyone who authorized him to do so committed a felony under current law.

Glenn, don’t they also retain the right to charge him later for all those crimes left out of the plea deal?

What crimes?

The documents recite that Flynn lied about business relations he had with Turkey, which is completely unrelated to the 2016 election. The DOJ agreed they would not charge him with those lies. If there are other crimes Flynn committed that are not even mentioned in the plea deal, then yes he could be charged with them. But, to me, this deal is a signal that there are no such other crimes. That's all they've got on Flynn.

Everyone should keep in mind three overarching things. First, Mueller's job is only to investigate and prosecute federal crimes. Second, the scope of his investigation is supposed to be crimes related to Russian interference with the campaign and election. Third, "collusion" is not a crime or even a legal word, and hence collusion with Russia or anyone else is not a crime. Some other, criminally defined conduct has to be found.

So far, there is no evidence or even a leak that Mueller has found anything relating to criminal conduct between the Trump campaign and Russia to affect the election.

I believe the investigation of Manafort and his business partners is complete. He was charged with business crimes during his lobbying work many years before the 2016 campaign and election and before he was associated with the Trump campaign. Result: NOTHING to do with Russia campaign crimes.

The investigation of Papadopolous is complete. No one ever heard of this guy, but what he was charged with was a minor perjury trap lie about the timing of conversations he had with a professor and woman about potential meetings with the Trump campaign -- meetings that never took place. Result: NOTHING to do with Russia campaign crimes.

I believe the investigation of Flynn is complete. His crimes were rinky dink perjury trap lies relating to perfectly legal and routine conversations with the Russian ambassador AFTER THE ELECTION WAS OVER in his capacity as the incoming National Security Advisor. Result: NOTHING to do with Russia campaign crimes.

If the senior Transition Team officials (Kushner? McFarlan?) with whom Flynn spoke in December 2016 tell lies about their conversations with Flynn, then that would again just be rinky dink perjury trap stuff, regarding perfectly legal conduct AFTER the campaign and election were over. Result: NOTHING to do with Russia campaign crimes.

Yes, as JIT points out, minor charges against one person can be used to get the person to spill the goods on a bigger fish. But I don't see any evidence, or hint of evidence, that there are any criminal goods to spill. And who were bigger fish in the campaign than Manafort and Flynn? Nor do I see any possibility that Manafort, Papadopolous or Flynn have any information to spill on the firing of Comey, even assuming Mueller is investigating that, since all of them were long gone from the Trump orbit when Trump fired Comey.

The questions that the Flynn plea should raise are why did he plead guilty to lying and how would the FBI have known he was lying about the precise content of his conversations with Russian Ambassador Kislyak? Surely, Kislyak didn't talk to the FBI to give his version.

Andy McCarthy, who is the best legal columnist on this investigation, thinks it is obvious that Kislyak had been wire-tapped by the FBI. Therefore, the FBI knew the exact content of the Flynn-Kislyak phone calls. Finding no underlying criminal act, they baited Flynn into their perjury traps, simply to get something on him.

Even worse, it's possible that Flynn himself was wiretapped via FISA warrants obtained on the basis of the lurid and unsubstantiated Steele Dossier, which was paid for by the Clinton campaign and Democrat National Committee and which was given to the FBI by their paid agent (Fusion GPS). The Steele Dossier was ultimately derived from Kremlin sources, very likely in exchange for money, which would be a federal crime if traced to the Clinton campaign. There has been no public statement that Mueller is investigating these transactions, even though they seem to be directly related to the scope of his investigation. Congress is focusing on this.

Trump's lawyer, Ty Cobb, seems confident that the Mueller investigation is winding down. He could be right. He also could be naive or incompetent.

. First, Mueller's job is only to investigate and prosecute federal crimes. Second, the scope of his investigation is supposed to be crimes related to Russian interference with the campaign and election.

Isn't obstruction of justice with regard to Trump firing Comey part of it as well? Although that wouldn't take much of an investigation since Trump admits that he fired Comey because of the Russia investigation and that his firing "relieved a lot of pressure".

Flynn is charged with one felony count of lying to the FBI. That one count encompasses four lies Flynn told about his conversations with the Russian ambassador. Two lies relate to the content of conversations about sanctions, and two lies relate to the content of conversations about a U.N. Security Council vote concerning Israel.

None of these conversations was in any way illegal. Nor was the conduct that was conversed about. The only illegal thing Flynn did was to materially misstate (lie about) the content of the conversations to the FBI last January.

This also isn't technically true. He would have violated the Logan Act by being a private citizen and engaging in talks on behalf of the US without being authorized to do so by the government at the time.

Of course any conviction would likely be overturned since the act is generally considered unconstitutionally vague even though it has never been offically looked at by SCOTUS.

But as the laws currently stand, he and anyone who authorized him to do so committed a felony under current law.

No one has ever been prosecuted under the 1799 Logan Act, and hence it is unenforceable under the doctrine of desuetude. Even if it weren't, it would almost certainly be held unconstitutional today as a violation of the First Amendment. Presidential transition teams have historically begun communications with foreign nations before the presidential inauguration. For example, Reagan negotiated with the Iranians about the 400 hostages before he was sworn in. Carter has negotiated with several foreign governments after his presidency ended. Mueller knows all this, judges know all this, everyone knows -- so it would probably be unethical for Mueller to try to enforce the Logan Act.

. First, Mueller's job is only to investigate and prosecute federal crimes. Second, the scope of his investigation is supposed to be crimes related to Russian interference with the campaign and election.

Isn't obstruction of justice with regard to Trump firing Comey part of it as well? Although that wouldn't take much of an investigation since Trump admits that he fired Comey because of the Russia investigation and that his firing "relieved a lot of pressure".

No one knows for sure whether Mueller has been authorized to investigate this. If he does, I'm not sure either what else there is to learn. We've heard from Trump, Comey, Rosenstein and Sessions about the firing. Rosenstein savaged Comey's performance and recommended his firing in a long memorandum. Rosenstein is Mueller's boss.

Trump fired Comey either because of the joint recommendation of Rosenstein/Sessions or because Comey wouldn't admit publicly that Trump wasn't part of the Russia investigation, which is Trump's absolute Constitutional right as the unitary head of the executive branch. Plus, how could the firing have obstructed the Russia investigation when Trump acquiesced in the appointment of the much more aggressive special counsel investigation.

The Flynn plea deal highlights that there are competing theories in two key areas.

1. Why did Flynn get off with the equivalent of a jaywalking ticket?

One theory is that Mueller had big prosecutable crimes on Flynn but dropped it all down to lying to the FBI in exchange for dynamite incriminating evidence Flynn has on Trump. Almost the entire left wing (= major media = legal academia) champion this theory.

The competing theory is that Mueller charged Flynn with the only Russia-relevant stuff he had -- lies -- that Mueller couldn't prove any underlying crimes, and that Flynn is now useless as a prosecution witness before a jury because he has been officially branded as a liar. Professor Alan Dershowitz and I believe this theory.

2. Is Kushner the next domino or the preceding domino?

We'll assume that Kushner is the "very senior official" of the Trump Transition Team who directed Flynn to talk to other countries, including Russia, about the U.N. vote on Israeli settlements and who further discussed the matter with Flynn. The left wing favors the theory that Flynn has stuff on Kushner and that Mueller will use Flynn to topple the Kushner domino into some sort of crime.

The competing theory rests significantly on the fact that Kushner had already been interviewed by Mueller before the Flynn deal was made. This theory, which I prefer, is that Kushner was the preceding domino that toppled Flynn. In other words, Mueller confirmed Flynn's lies about what was said in his meetings with Kislyak because Kushner knew all about those meetings from Flynn, knew exactly what was said, and told the truth about it to Mueller. Therefore, Kushner was the torpedo that sunk Flynn's ship, and hence Flynn won't be sinking Kushner.

I always keep in mind, and it affects my perspective on the Russia investigation, that Trump, his family and staff were complete political novices. They were political and policy amateurs -- people (mostly young) whose entire lives revolved around real estate, hotels, TV shows, beauty contests, modeling, and local newspaper ownership -- who weren't part of the American political scene, much less any foreign political scene. Trump had no advisors, no generals, no intelligence contacts, nothing. He was in no position to have influential contacts within the Russian government.

The two biggest fish in or around Trump's campaign who were known to have had substantial business contacts with Russia or former Soviet satellites were Manafort and Flynn. They were the obvious targets for the most extensive investigation. The investigations of both seem to be over, with no underlying Russia/campaign crimes being charged to either of them. I believe this is the basis of Ty Cobb's optimism that the investigation is winding down.

If he didn't do anything illegal, why did he lie to the FBI about it? Surely he had a lawyer at least as good as the posters here to tell him he didn't need to.

Good question.

Flynn voluntarily accepted an FBI interview on January 24, 2017. It's not clear to me he had a lawyer at that time to advise him. That would take some research.

Comey told Congress that based on his investigation so far he didn't believe Flynn lied, that Flynn was just confused, as the new NatSec advisor in the busy first week after the inauguration, about what exactly he had talked about a month earlier to Kislyak.

One possibility is that Flynn did not consciously lie. He told the story about Kislyak as he remembered it. What could have happened later, with Mueller's team, is that Flynn was presented with documents, wiretap recordings, or testimony from people like Kushner and McFarland, which were clearly inconsistent with his memory. Faced with this irrefutable evidence, he had to admit that he hadn't told the truth.

Alternatively, assuming no legal counsel, Flynn may have had a layman's fear of the Logan Act or of the word "collusion" that the political world was throwing around without definition (and still is). Especially being somewhat of a loose cannon risk taker, he decided to be misleading, minimizing or having selective memory. And maybe he expected Trump to protect him.

It is a mystery why he lied to the FBI. The next month, he lied to the Vice President about the same meeting. At least he was consistent.

Flynn is charged with one felony count of lying to the FBI. That one count encompasses four lies Flynn told about his conversations with the Russian ambassador. Two lies relate to the content of conversations about sanctions, and two lies relate to the content of conversations about a U.N. Security Council vote concerning Israel.

None of these conversations was in any way illegal. Nor was the conduct that was conversed about. The only illegal thing Flynn did was to materially misstate (lie about) the content of the conversations to the FBI last January.

This also isn't technically true. He would have violated the Logan Act by being a private citizen and engaging in talks on behalf of the US without being authorized to do so by the government at the time.

Of course any conviction would likely be overturned since the act is generally considered unconstitutionally vague even though it has never been offically looked at by SCOTUS.

But as the laws currently stand, he and anyone who authorized him to do so committed a felony under current law.

No one has ever been prosecuted under the 1799 Logan Act, and hence it is unenforceable under the doctrine of desuetude. Even if it weren't, it would almost certainly be held unconstitutional today as a violation of the First Amendment. Presidential transition teams have historically begun communications with foreign nations before the presidential inauguration. For example, Reagan negotiated with the Iranians about the 400 hostages before he was sworn in. Carter has negotiated with several foreign governments after his presidency ended. Mueller knows all this, judges know all this, everyone knows -- so it would probably be unethical for Mueller to try to enforce the Logan Act.

Mueller has free reign to go wherever his investigation takes him. i'm sure you remember Ken Starr started out investigating Whitewater & ended up with Monica Lewinsky. each area does not have to be delineated in order for him to look into it.

Trump fired Comey either because of the joint recommendation of Rosenstein/Sessions or because Comey wouldn't admit publicly that Trump wasn't part of the Russia investigation, which is Trump's absolute Constitutional right as the unitary head of the executive branch. Plus, how could the firing have obstructed the Russia investigation when Trump acquiesced in the appointment of the much more aggressive special counsel investigation.

Trump told Lester Holt in a televised interview that he was going to fire Comey regardless of the recommendation of Rosenstein. He didn't mention Sessions in that interview.

Trump gave some Russians a different reason for the firing in the oval office:

“I just fired the head of the F.B.I. He was crazy, a real nut job,” Mr. Trump said, according to the document, which was read to The New York Times by an American official. “I faced great pressure because of Russia. That’s taken off.”

Okay so. Another question. Jared. He's under a cloud, to say the least. At what point does Mueller report to someone (who?) that he's the target of a federal investigation, or that he has or is anticipating incriminating testimony against Jared, etc. and he will now (or should be) excused from further government work?

Glenn, don’t they also retain the right to charge him later for all those crimes left out of the plea deal?

What crimes?

The documents recite that Flynn lied about business relations he had with Turkey, which is completely unrelated to the 2016 election. The DOJ agreed they would not charge him with those lies. If there are other crimes Flynn committed that are not even mentioned in the plea deal, then yes he could be charged with them. But, to me, this deal is a signal that there are no such other crimes. That's all they've got on Flynn.

Well that's not what I heard. But, as you say, anyone who trusts any media source right now for accurate information is a fool. But I heard there were about eight more serious charges that weren't included in the plea deal that THAT indicated that Flynn was going to provide to the investigation a lot of what they really were looking for. Speaking of reliable sources, I seem to recall a scene in Billions where they indict someone for a bunch of shit after having a plea deal (a judge, actually) for stuff that wasn't in the deal.

Okay so. Another question. Jared. He's under a cloud, to say the least. At what point does Mueller report to someone (who?) that he's the target of a federal investigation, or that he has or is anticipating incriminating testimony against Jared, etc. and he will now (or should be) excused from further government work?

On an ever-so-slight tangent: I just heard recently from a (reasonably informed?) friend that Chris Christie (as a NJ DA) is the guy who put Jared's father in prison, and that played a role in why Chris never got any real face time in this admin. Anybody know anything about that?

Okay so. Another question. Jared. He's under a cloud, to say the least. At what point does Mueller report to someone (who?) that he's the target of a federal investigation, or that he has or is anticipating incriminating testimony against Jared, etc. and he will now (or should be) excused from further government work?

On an ever-so-slight tangent: I just heard recently from a (reasonably informed?) friend that Chris Christie (as a NJ DA) is the guy who put Jared's father in prison, and that played a role in why Chris never got any real face time in this admin. Anybody know anything about that?

Your friend's story is correct. That is an old story and can be googled as there is a plethora of articles out there.

Back to the Logan Act, the 1799 act that prohibits private citizens from trying to influence other nations with whom the U.S. has a dispute, but which no one has ever been prosecuted under:

Byron York today wrote a detailed and convincing analysis that Democrat politicians and politicized Obama holdovers in the DOJ (Sally Yates), who were outraged that Trump was going to overturn Obama policies, used the Logan Act fears to besmirch the Trump transition and ultimately to entrap General Flynn in lies. I think it's a good, non-partisan analysis, which clearly recalls that Flynn's phone conversations with Kislyak were in fact tapped by the FBI and were reported via leaks at the time:

Back to the Logan Act, the 1799 act that prohibits private citizens from trying to influence other nations with whom the U.S. has a dispute, but which no one has ever been prosecuted under:

Byron York today wrote a detailed and convincing analysis that Democrat politicians and politicized Obama holdovers in the DOJ (Sally Yates), who were outraged that Trump was going to overturn Obama policies, used the Logan Act fears to besmirch the Trump transition an ultimately to entrap General Flynn in lies. I think it's a good, non-partisan analysis, which clearly recalls that Flynn's phone conversations with Kislyak were in fact tapped by the FBI and were reported via leaks at the time:

I am saying the interviews will be completed by the end of next week . . . . The Manafort inquiry has nothing to do with the White House . . . . And, we do not anticipate the long awaited Flynn indictment will delay the Special Counsel's conclusion of the inquiry into the White House. Just no there there.

A lot of commentators, including Breitbart, think Cobb is naive. Just because Mueller's interviews of White House personnel might in fact be over by January doesn't necessarily mean that Mueller won't follow up with legal action against some of those personnel. But it does seem accurate that, publicly so far, no criminal evidence has been reported to be there there.

"The president cannot obstruct justice because he is the chief law enforcement officer under (the Constitution's Article II) and has every right to express his view of any case," Dowd told NBC News Monday.

I'd add that a president could obstruct justice if he does it by some act that on its own is clearly criminal, such as bribery as stated in the Constitution or by perjury as by Bill Clinton.

Back to the Logan Act, the 1799 act that prohibits private citizens from trying to influence other nations with whom the U.S. has a dispute, but which no one has ever been prosecuted under:

Byron York today wrote a detailed and convincing analysis that Democrat politicians and politicized Obama holdovers in the DOJ (Sally Yates), who were outraged that Trump was going to overturn Obama policies, used the Logan Act fears to besmirch the Trump transition an ultimately to entrap General Flynn in lies. I think it's a good, non-partisan analysis, which clearly recalls that Flynn's phone conversations with Kislyak were in fact tapped by the FBI and were reported via leaks at the time:

I know when I am looking for "good, non-partisan (sic) analysis" the first place I go is the Washington Freakin' Examiner.

MAGA!!!

I cannot think of any newspaper, magazine or website reporting on politics today that is not considered to be biased by someone. That may even be generally true. But that does not mean that there are not individual articles or columns in those publications that are unbiased or non-partisan. York's article is primarily a recitation of historical facts, supported by link chains that sometimes go back to the Washington Post, New York Times, Wall Street Journal and CNN.

"The president cannot obstruct justice because he is the chief law enforcement officer under (the Constitution's Article II) and has every right to express his view of any case," Dowd told NBC News Monday.

I'd add that a president could obstruct justice if he does it by some act that on its own is clearly criminal, such as bribery as stated in the Constitution or by perjury as by Bill Clinton.

Well. Hmm. I thought with the Lester Holt interview Trump admitted to obstructing justice. But I believe Dershowitz knows what he's talking about. As striking as his assertions are, what really was amazing was how Jeffrey Toobin's counterargument was complete emotional bullshit. Emotional as in, we would wish for what I'm saying to be the case with hope, outrage, and denial.

He can still be impeached, I think. As that is a political act, as Dershowitz says. But I don't think that would happen short of some criminal charge by the special counsel. But... I think that's coming. If Flynn reveals that actions were taken by the Trump transition that countered the policies of the US for the sake of his personal financial business empire there would have to be come corruption charges to cover that. But I may be saying that with hope, outrage, and denial.

Well. Hmm. I thought with the Lester Holt interview Trump admitted to obstructing justice. But I believe Dershowitz knows what he's talking about. As striking as his assertions are, what really was amazing was how Jeffrey Toobin's counterargument was complete emotional bullshit. Emotional as in, we would wish for what I'm saying to be the case with hope, outrage, and denial.

He can still be impeached, I think. As that is a political act, as Dershowitz says. But I don't think that would happen short of some criminal charge by the special counsel. But... I think that's coming. If Flynn reveals that actions were taken by the Trump transition that countered the policies of the US for the sake of his personal financial business empire there would have to be come corruption charges to cover that. But I may be saying that with hope, outrage, and denial.

Whether or not a POTUS can be convicted for the crime of "Obstruction of Justice" is an unsettled question. There are legitimately good legal minds on both sides of that debate. It would almost certainly end up before SCOTUS if it ever came to it.

But that is not really what we are looking at here. The question is not about the criminal code but rather "High Crimes and Misdemeanors." And the Supreme Court and most legal scholars believe that to mean political crimes, or abuses of power. In other words, one does not actually have to be guilty of breaking the criminal code to run afoul of that and be subject to impeachment. So while being charged with obstruction is questionable at best, if it is proven by Mueller that Trump used the authority of his office in order to attempt to circumvent justice or to cover something up, inpeachment becomes highly likely. Especially if the Dems flip the House. Notably, that is what led to Nixon's resignation, as impeachment was all but ensured.

Just watching CNN. I have to say this. The difference between the analysis by Carl Bernstein and that of David Gregory is PAINFUL. FUCKING painful. And Gregory was chirping to interrupt Carl Bernstein to say the nothingburger SHIT he said? I'm tempted to transcribe the entire thing.

There's no hope. When the the almost extinct now generations of great reporters are gone, we're fucking finished here, folks. Game over.

i would trade in a whole bunch of 'em to have tim russert back. i've endured too many white house briefings to see they can't get real answers because they don't know how to ask the questions. russert was genius at nailing folks to the wall without burning bridges.

We can agree to disagree on Russert. But I would hope that all thinking people can agree that it's fake news. Meaning every fucking thing. lol. Look. The first time I heard the phrase 'main stream media' I think, certainly the first time I heard it used as a disparagement, was in the late 80s. And it was by the FAR Left. And I mean the all the way to the left, Left. Noam Chomsky, Michael Parenti, Ralph Nadar, and many others whose names I never new but voices were familiar because of KPFK, Pacifica Radio for Los Angeles.

Those people derided the establishment press for all of its failings. I remember multiple books. I bought two of them. Manufacturing Consent, by Chomsky, and the much MUCH more readable and lucid, Inventing Reality by the always much clearer voice on these matters, Michael Parenti. There was also these two guys who published a newsletter. I want to say it was Media Matters, but I think that's now something else totally not associated with the newsletter guys I'm thinking of.

The sins and failures and bias of the mainstream media were these writers' point of departure to take on the many nefarious actions of the US government and multinationals going back half a century. From the CIA to Nestle. How all of it was covered in the press (usually not at all) is the basis of the idea of 'manufacturing' the 'consent' of the American people.

As deplorable and dangerous as Trump is and as quickly as I would like to see him gone, there is ONE area where the Left would be so wise, IMO, to jump in there IN AGREEMENT with Trump. And that is on the issue of Fake News. Because the same establishment press that was, again, IMO, called out for decades by the Parentis and Chomskys of the world, is still in place. They've learned to cover more of the atrocities around the world in real time instead of years after the fact, but I wouldn't be surprised if Noam Chomsky disagreed with me on that statement.

When Trump attacks they grab at the emotional defenses of the bravery of their reporters around the world risking their lives to bring back the news, and of the long traditions of excellence and journalistic commitment of their respective publications or networks or colleagues, all hoping that the Trump hating viewer will grab at a hanky and shed a tear on their behalf.

I'm sorry. The far Left, if THAT far Left still exists and hasn't been completely erased by angry 20 year-olds typing FUCKTARDS all day long, should say, You know what, on this we agree with President Trump. So much fake news, etc.

Politically, it would be pure genius. IMO. You undercut Trump and steal one of his signature catch phrases. You win tons of agreement by millions of Americans who have become very good as spotting fake news. Because the examples of fake news have been coming hot and heavy the last many years and the media, as led by the 24 hour monument to bad news coverage that is CNN, has gotten ever more sloppy in its standards and decision making.

Lot of those people would have voted for Trump. Bernie Sanders would be great at this. So would some further left journalists. The mainstream media IS the propaganda tool for the elites in this country. Push Trump and the last 27 months away and you have America as it was before he declared his candidacy. That would be a place where economic inequality became so great that we were said to have entered into another gilded age. We posted a thread here, Hell in a Hand Basket. Many horror stories in there.

The media reported on these things, yes, but only after so many lives were destroyed and the actions or lax enforcement or loopholes that allowed any of it were pretty much written in stone by that point. And then off they go to the White House Correspondence Dinner to sit along with the Republican Party and its donors, etc. It's all one club, as Ralph Nader or anybody listening to KPFK in the last 40 years would tell you. Fake News is how they do it.

First, there is legal/Constitutional ambiguity and disagreement at to whether a sitting president can be indicted and prosecuted for any crime, not just obstruction of justice. However, it's clear that the president can be prosecuted after he leaves office. That's why Clinton made a settlement deal with Ken Starr before he left office.

Second, Alan Dershowitz and others (including me) argue that a president cannot commit the crime of obstruction of justice simply by firing a subordinate person such as Comey, or by directing a subordinate agency such as the FBI or DOJ as what cases to investigate or drop, or by pardoning anyone -- so long as he does not commit some other crime in connection with the act, such as taking a bribe in return for a pardon.

Third, anything can be the grounds for impeachment if the majority of the House of Representatives says so. Therefore, some sort of non-criminal or political "obstruction of justice" could be grounds for impeachment if it shocks enough politicians.

I think Alan Dershowitz is the most competent and best TV commentator on the legalities of the investigation. He's a brilliant retired Harvard Law professor -- the youngest ever to receive tenure -- and he's also been a practicing and winning criminal lawyer in very high profile cases such as O.J. Simpson and Claus von Bulow. He's been a liberal Democrat all his life, dislikes Trump, and appears as a completely independent voice on all the networks, left and right.

Jonathan Turley, the liberal George Washington Law School professor and constitutional litigator, is also usually balanced and non-partisan.

Jeffrey Toobin, on the other hand, should be ignored. Once respectable, he's degenerated into nothing more than a left wing talking points hired gun, serving mainly to generate TV clicks for CNN with breathless and over-the-top hyperbole about anything anti-Trump. He's a bit more balanced when writing serious articles.

Well. Just want to say. The name "Alan Dershowitz" has come up multiple times now on MSBNC today. First on Morning Joe and now on Deadline: White House, Niccole Wallace's show. Not as a target of specific derision, oddly enough, but certainly one of a sort of passing understood dismissiveness. The target is the White House lawyers and especially Dowd who uttered the notion, I don't know if he was taking up what Dershowitz had said or not, that the POTUS can't be guilty of obstruction under these circumstances. On Morning Joe they were absolutely certain that a POTUS can be guilty of obstruction under, ahem, these exact circumstances and they were quite clear about that. These are lawyer/politicians and seasoned DC journalists. So I really don't know who to believe here. Dershowitz is very convincing and appears to be a neutral voice. Which I honestly can't say the same thing of the national political establishment news media. But they appear to be pretty clear about all this and, as I said, really aren't giving Dershowitz, who only gets a mention now and then, the time of day, or it seems any credo to his assertions, which are just passed off as some kind of nonsense.

of course, we're in an alternate universe now, so whoever opines an unpopular thought is worthy of being dismissed. dershowitz, in this case, has been on a rather quiet rampage for some time now, especially about grand juries, special inquiries and other interrogations of that ilk, on the idea that the targets of inquiry are unfairly defenseless without legal representation allowed to participate. i suppose he has a good argument there, but i'm not sure i'd agree these kinds of procedures aren't necessary. anyway, in our alternate universe, the odd ones out are suspicious. or they appear to be the most sane of the bunch. dershowitz' credentials don't necessarily impress me and, honestly, we must know by now that the talking heads are guessing at best.

there's only one thing i've heard on tv lately that i believe, and that's that flynn was in truly deep doo, but he had so much to offer mueller that four instances of lying got compressed into one measly count worth a few measly years in exchange for his cooperation. everything else is a big guess, and just about anything can happen, including trump pardoning himself, if it comes to that. the shortcomings of our constitution are being tested, and trump's already got his supreme seated.

there's only one thing i've heard on tv lately that i believe, and that's that flynn was in truly deep doo, but he had so much to offer mueller that four instances of lying got compressed into one measly count worth a few measly years in exchange for his cooperation.

What you heard is likely wrong. Take a few minutes to read Andrew McCarthy, the former DOJ attorney who successfully prosecuted the blind sheik and who now is a prolific writer on legal matters. I'll quote some of the column:

Quote:

There is a great deal of misinformation in the commentariat about how prosecutors build cases.

Many analysts are under the misimpression that it is typical for federal prosecutors to accept guilty pleas on minor charges in exchange for cooperation that helps build a case on major charges. From this flawed premise, they reason that Mueller is methodically constructing a major case on Trump by accepting minor guilty pleas from Michael Flynn and George Papadopoulos for making false statements, and by indicting Paul Manafort and an associate on charges that have nothing to do with Trump or the 2016 election.

That is simply not how it works, strategically or legally.

. . . if a prosecutor has an accomplice cooperator who gives the government incriminating information about the major scheme under investigation, he pressures the accomplice to plead guilty to the major scheme, not to an ancillary process crime — and particularly not to false-statements charges.

. . . a guilty plea to the major scheme under investigation proves that the major scheme really happened — here, some kind of criminal collusion (i.e., conspiracy) in Russia’s espionage operation against the 2016 election.

Justice Department policy calls for prosecutors to indict a defendant on the most serious readily provable charge, not to plead out a case on minor charges to obtain cooperation. The federal sentencing guidelines also encourage this.

The practice of pressuring a guilty plea to the major charges makes the accomplice a formidable witness at trial.

Trading a plea on minor charges for cooperation is a foolish gambit that badly damages the prosecutor’s case. It suggests that the cooperator must not have disclosed details about the major scheme.

It is even worse to plead accomplices out on false-statements counts. This establishes that the main thing the jury should know about the accomplice is that he is not to be trusted. That is not how you make someone a strong witness.

Bottom line: If the FBI had a collusion case of some kind, after well over a year of intensive investigation, Flynn and Papadopoulos would have been pressured to plead guilty to very serious charges — and those serious offenses would be reflected in the charges lodged against Manafort. Obviously, the pleas and the indictment have nothing to do with collusion because Mueller has no collusion case.

there's only one thing i've heard on tv lately that i believe, and that's that flynn was in truly deep doo, but he had so much to offer mueller that four instances of lying got compressed into one measly count worth a few measly years in exchange for his cooperation.

What you heard is likely wrong. Take a few minutes to read Andrew McCarthy, the former DOJ attorney who successfully prosecuted the blind sheik and who now is a prolific writer on legal matters. I'll quote some of the column:

Quote:

There is a great deal of misinformation in the commentariat about how prosecutors build cases.

Many analysts are under the misimpression that it is typical for federal prosecutors to accept guilty pleas on minor charges in exchange for cooperation that helps build a case on major charges. From this flawed premise, they reason that Mueller is methodically constructing a major case on Trump by accepting minor guilty pleas from Michael Flynn and George Papadopoulos for making false statements, and by indicting Paul Manafort and an associate on charges that have nothing to do with Trump or the 2016 election.

That is simply not how it works, strategically or legally.

. . . if a prosecutor has an accomplice cooperator who gives the government incriminating information about the major scheme under investigation, he pressures the accomplice to plead guilty to the major scheme, not to an ancillary process crime — and particularly not to false-statements charges.

. . . a guilty plea to the major scheme under investigation proves that the major scheme really happened — here, some kind of criminal collusion (i.e., conspiracy) in Russia’s espionage operation against the 2016 election.

Justice Department policy calls for prosecutors to indict a defendant on the most serious readily provable charge, not to plead out a case on minor charges to obtain cooperation. The federal sentencing guidelines also encourage this.

The practice of pressuring a guilty plea to the major charges makes the accomplice a formidable witness at trial.

Trading a plea on minor charges for cooperation is a foolish gambit that badly damages the prosecutor’s case. It suggests that the cooperator must not have disclosed details about the major scheme.

It is even worse to plead accomplices out on false-statements counts. This establishes that the main thing the jury should know about the accomplice is that he is not to be trusted. That is not how you make someone a strong witness.

Bottom line: If the FBI had a collusion case of some kind, after well over a year of intensive investigation, Flynn and Papadopoulos would have been pressured to plead guilty to very serious charges — and those serious offenses would be reflected in the charges lodged against Manafort. Obviously, the pleas and the indictment have nothing to do with collusion because Mueller has no collusion case.

This reasoning would only apply if Flynn were directly involved in what they were going after Trump for. Instead, he may be a material witness of some other crime which he had knowledge about, yet not directly invloved, and came forward with a proffer of information in order to get his other charges dropped.

Say a low level drug dealer witnessed a murder by a cartel lieutenant. The prosecutors might well agree to a lesser charge on the drug offense in return for a signed affidavit (and agreement to later testify) about what he witnessed. This affidavit could then be used as probable cause for subpoenas and search warrants to further the investigation.

Mr. Flynn had worked on a business venture to partner with Russia to build nuclear power plants in the Middle East until June 2016, but remained close with the people involved afterward. On Inauguration Day, as he sat behind the president listening to the inaugural address, Mr. Flynn, according to the whistle-blower, texted the former business associate to say that the project was “good to go.”

_________________A leader is one who knows the way, goes the way, and shows the way